Judgment · High Court

Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P.-in-Charge Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. A.P.P. .…for the State Petitioner prays for bail. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is in custody for 395 days. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report. The petitioner was included in the supplementary charge-sheet. Petitioner stands on the same footing as that of three co-accused who were granted bail by the jurisdictional Court. She submits that, thereafter, on an application for cancellation, such bail was cancelled. A criminal revision was filed in which, the High Court granted stay of the order cancelling the bail. 2 Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that, stolen cash was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner was identified in the Test Identification Parade. Prayer for bail of the co-accused who are similarly placed as that of the petitioner was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench. The materials in the Case Diary suggest that stolen cash was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was also identified in the Test Identification Parade. In such circumstances, considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner as transpiring from the materials in the Case Diary, we are unable to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. CRM(DB) 4580 of 2023 is therefore, disposed of. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)